Main Site (challenging Mike's commentary)

[Imperial528]

The Turbolaser Commentaries are not part of the main site: they are hosted on it now but were originally a separate website entirely, and as far as I know were a separate site during the debate's prime.

I would believe that if the updates weren't listed on the main site by wong himself back in 2001, "March 18, 2001
I am very pleased to announce the return of Brian Young's Turbolaser Commentaries, now hosted right here at www.stardestroyer.net/tlc. " that was before the AOTC ICS was published and the bulk of the debates.

Without an update log I have no way to know if the updates were Mike actually changing details or if they were just him adding notes mentioning his hosting of the commentaries. But this is all irrelevant. I'll get to why at the end of this post.

I responded like that because anytime anybody challenges the integrity of mikes site, they immediately have a target on their back. you saw how others responded on this thread, even though I can prove my claims. I was ridiculed, made fun of, called a troll, told I was wrong, then the entire issue was ignored and deflected by calling it a fucking vs debate. given what I have showed you, can you honestly say I'm wrong? this isn't even the first time that I have brought up the subject. hell, I was just called a hypocrite for calling out wong for using the ST tech manuals. here is an excerpt from his beam weapons page.

However, official interpretations are not as important as direct observations, and from direct observation of the canon films, we know the following with absolute certainty:"

yet in almost every mention of federation technology on his website, he quotes from the non canon tech manuals to the point of exclusion of on screen examples. and he either deliberately misinterprets or outright lies on the ones that aren't from a book. and I'm a hypocrite for pointing this out. I am more than capable of civil discussion. what makes me throw civility out the window is when I get bullshit excuses when I clearly prove a point. as I clearly have on this particular thread. as I said before, if you want more examples, just ask.

What does any of that have to do with me? If you have issue with people you spoke with last time, bring it up with them.

I only pointed out that most of Wong's analysis is based on the films, which is true. From a quick purview of the Turbolaser Commentaries, this is also true there, if not more so. You said in your original post that the main site mainly applies to the EU, when the vast majority of content on the main site and the TC relies primarily on the OT and some of the PT.

Apparently for having the audacity to point out this fact that you could know just by reading the site itself, you branded me as some sort of fanatic with an incapacity for critical thought and tried to rope me into defending the main site's analysis, which I didn't even do in my original response to this thread.

Lots of people on this very forum disagree with Mike's analysis and they aren't driven out or hunted down in droves. If you feel like you, singularly, are a victim for disagreeing, then maybe it isn't the disagreement that's the problem.

[Formless]

I'm sorry. how was that analysis wrong? he clearly said there were two fleets on the tactical display. visual confirms this wrong. at the point that we even see the tactical display, the rebel fleet hadn't even arrived yet. therefore there couldn't have been two fleets. this is a pathetic ad hominem with a side of red herring.

You don't know how to read the tactical display. Its a fictional display in a fictional language and a fictional UI. I think what Mike intended was that the Rebel fleet was on top of the Death Star at the time, so it wouldn't actually appear on that display; or it was in hyperspace, but known about by the Imperials because it was a trap and all that. But besides that, we also later see the Imperial fleet from the POV of the Falcon and Admiral Ackbar's flagship, and at that point the context of the film clearly indicates that the Imperial fleet was hiding on the other side of the forest moon. That's actually the important part of the analysis. So at best you are nitpicking, at worst you are cherrypicking, but either way you haven't shown Mike's analysis of Star Wars acceleration speeds to be wrong.

I didn't lie. I told him the same thing I told you with slightly different wording. more ad hominem.

That's backpedaling. By the time you told me this, you had already responded to Crazedwraith, ergo you should know better than to repeat yourself. Doing so can be considered Broken Record debating; or in other words, dishonest, a lie.

most of those "inconsistent measurements" are nothing more than fan calcs. not official numbers.

This whole debate is over fan calcs, dipshit. You are doing fan calcs when you scale asteroids against turbolaser bolts! Imperial528 is not wrong, you have no sense of integrity, you are just here to troll. When you front load your argument with an argument against the validity of fan calcs, then proceed to do your own fan calcs, you are proving that no argument you make can be taken seriously.

I'm really leaning more towards lie since even with the old VHS tapes, which I own, its glaringly obvious that the flak burst is seen outside the asteroid field. so there is really no excuse for it.

Yes there is. Anyone can look at the screenshots provided and see that the quality of VHS is low enough that such mistakes are quite easy to make. As I understand it, they did not even have the Special Editions, and despite all the jokes about Han shooting first, the Special Editions were legitimately an improvement quality wise over the tapes that were previously avaliable. They certainly didn't have DVD or Blu-ray quality screenshots back in the 90's when Brian Young did the analysis, and the pages where Mike analyzes the prequels show a huge improvement in picture quality. Admit it, you are just here to troll and throw out asinine acusations that no one who knows Mike or Brian can possibly respect.

it mentions the ICS yield and then says that this would be enough to "pulverize a well-consolidated 100-150 metre wide asteroid, assuming that the force-coupling efficiency of an energy bolt is equal to the force-coupling efficiency of a centrally buried chemical explosive. " we always hear words like "presuming", "assuming", estimation" a lot. he also goes on to say that this isn't the case, and "Realistically, a 2 kiloton energy beam of perhaps 0.01 second duration would probably be limited to fragmenting an asteroid of only a few dozen metres in size rather than 100-150 (with a lot of heating, melting, and vapourization), which is closer to what we see in the film." that's not exactly specific.

All fan calcs are estimations, idiot. Not that it matters if you consider fan calcs inherently invalid. The degree of accuracy in our measurements are limited by the fact that it is a film, not a laboratory. Even when that asteroid exploded over Chelyabinsk, Russia, all they could do was give an estimate of the force of the explosion. More to the point, Mike takes the time to explain how the destructive mechanism is different when you point a laser at a rock than when you bury a chemical explosive in the same rock, and why that would result in the laser needing more energy to blow up a smaller rock than the buried chemical explosive. He isn't more specific because the calculations needed to prove it are presumably quite complicated and difficult to understand unless you have the same credentials that Mike has. I certainly wouldn't be able to keep up with them what with opting for a psychology degree instead of physics or engineering. So he gets to the important point because its supposed to supplement earlier writings rather than obsolete them. The explanation makes sense, its consistent with the power of the other weapons shown in the same exact scene (the seismic charges), and its consistent with everything else that was canon at the time like the ICS. Its a brief analysis intended to confirm that the scene is consistent with what is already known, and it does its job perfectly fine once you understand its purpose.

At this point however I am convinced that you don't understand the nature and methodology of these kinds of articles. You want everything to be more precise than its intended to be, are unforgiving of honest mistakes, are unforgiving of limiting factors like image quality, and will dismiss any analysis of a visual on "canon" grounds despite the saying "a picture is worth a thousands words"-- and these pictures are the ultimate in Star Wars canon. If you keep insisting otherwise, I will simply stop responding with arguments because arguments will be unnecessary.

I never said that they weren't antimatter warheads so that statement is totally irrelevant. show me where I said that they weren't antimatter warheads? you cant. I said that he uses non canon materials to limit canon weapons. and I was right. get your head out of your ass.

You want to play the backtracking game, lets go right the hell back to where this started:

in his vs pages he ignores on screen ST feats in favor of non canon source books that even state in the cover that the information inside isn't true.

And later you say this:

yes, I read it. and the first thing he does is quote (surprise surprise) FROM THE FUCKING TECH MANUAL. that automatically limits whatever he comes up with. he does this throughout that whole page, which just proves my point even more. he does his own calcs yes, but he does em loaded down with preconceptions and limits implied from a non canon source that states in the flap that it contains false info.

And yet, Star Trek canon states that Photon Torpedoes are antimatter bombs. Just because the manual is non-canon does NOT mean everything in it is FALSE. The words you should be lookin for are "unconfirmed," but the only thing that is unconfirmed is the part of the book that states the actual ammount of antimatter contained within the torpedo. But its all irrelevant because Mike states at the top of the analysis that:

It is difficult to estimate photon torpedo yields because there has never been a substantive quantification of their output. However, the TM indicates that a photon torpedo carries 1.5kg of antimatter which presumably reacts with an equal amount of matter. This allows us to determine that the upper limit for photon torpedo yield is 2.7E17 joules (64.3 megatons), since Einstein's Theory of General Relativity predicts that E=mc²

Naturally, Federation cultists use this figure as a benchmark, assuming (for example) that if a GCS fires 10 photon torpedoes at a ship, then the target vessel will be hit with 643 megatons of energy. However, this is incorrect. The 64.3 megaton figure is an upper limit, and not necessarily a realistic estimate.

In other words, he is NOT saying that the number cited in the Technical Manual is canon or correct like you accuse him of doing, he is saying that other people in the debate treat it as canon and come to faulty conclusions out of ignorance. That you strawman him means you are either dishonest, or do not understand the concept of a dialectic. Frankly, I am leaning toward you being a liar. I do not have any reason to believe you bothered to read the essay thoroughly, yet you insist it contains false information. It. Does. Not.

Either way, you also put your foot in your mouth when you said:

not to mention, as you said, on screen canon is always going to be canon, yet in his vs pages he ignores on screen ST feats in favor of non canon source books that even state in the cover that the information inside isn't true.

When in fact, Mike DOES analyze the visuals regarding torpedo guidance systems, citing exact episodes of relevance such as "The Changling." Meaning, your accusation is bullshit with no basis in reality.

So, how about you apologize for telling to "get my head out of my ass" AND apologize for all the accusations of dishonesty you have been throwing around? Also, as a friendly suggestion, you should also apologize to Queue. He's just doing his job as admin, and if you disagree with his judgement you are supposed to take it up in private rather than publicly insulting him over it. After all, I was the one who suggested it be moved here. I won't apologize for that, however. It does belong here.

[texanmarauder]

Without an update log I have no way to know if the updates were Mike actually changing details or if they were just him adding notes mentioning his hosting of the commentaries. But this is all irrelevant. I'll get to why at the end of this post.

no offense, but he was pretty specific about "now hosted right here at sd.net"

What does any of that have to do with me? If you have issue with people you spoke with last time, bring it up with them.

you are correct that I summarily lumped you in with those that I had issues with . I apologize.

[texanmarauder]

You don't know how to read the tactical display. Its a fictional display in a fictional language and a fictional UI. I think what Mike intended was that the Rebel fleet was on top of the Death Star at the time, so it wouldn't actually appear on that display; or it was in hyperspace, but known about by the Imperials because it was a trap and all that. But besides that, we also later see the Imperial fleet from the POV of the Falcon and Admiral Ackbar's flagship, and at that point the context of the film clearly indicates that the Imperial fleet was hiding on the other side of the forest moon. That's actually the important part of the analysis. So at best you are nitpicking, at worst you are cherrypicking, but either way you haven't shown Mike's analysis of Star Wars acceleration speeds to be wrong.

lets see. pretty sure the ball looking thing was the DS. since the rebel fleet hadn't yet arrived and it only showed one fleet, then logically that means that the only fleet there was the imperial fleet. its pretty self explanatory. and how did they know the imperials were there? they didn't until they were in visual range. this makes sense because the imperials were jamming sensors so that they couldn't detect the shield. this is also supported by dialogue in novelization. that "you don't know how to read the tactical display" crap doesn't fly. by that standard, mike wouldn't know either. either way, his description of the display was wrong.

That's backpedaling. By the time you told me this, you had already responded to Crazedwraith, ergo you should know better than to repeat yourself. Doing so can be considered Broken Record debating; or in other words, dishonest, a lie.

that's not backpedaling. that's you calling me a liar for no reason and then me answering that by telling you that I had already addressed it. you had no reason to call me a liar. and I would point out that since Crazedwraith already addressed it, the Broken Record argument applies to you as well.

This whole debate is over fan calcs, dipshit. You are doing fan calcs when you scale asteroids against turbolaser bolts! Imperial528 is not wrong, you have no sense of integrity, you are just here to troll. When you front load your argument with an argument against the validity of fan calcs, then proceed to do your own fan calcs, you are proving that no argument you make can be taken seriously.

I have more integrity than somebody like you who can never admit when they are wrong. I pointed out that the display literally doesn't show what mike claimed and you respond with deflection after deflection, going so far as to tell me that I don't know how to read a goddamn tactical display. you haven't attempted to even refute. you just dance around the issue and attack everything I say.

Yes there is. Anyone can look at the screenshots provided and see that the quality of VHS is low enough that such mistakes are quite easy to make. As I understand it, they did not even have the Special Editions, and despite all the jokes about Han shooting first, the Special Editions were legitimately an improvement quality wise over the tapes that were previously avaliable. They certainly didn't have DVD or Blu-ray quality screenshots back in the 90's when Brian Young did the analysis, and the pages where Mike analyzes the prequels show a huge improvement in picture quality. Admit it, you are just here to troll and throw out asinine acusations that no one who knows Mike or Brian can possibly respect.

wow. you are telling me that somebody as smart as brian and mike seem to be, who can take VHS footage and tear it apart frame by frame, cant see the difference between flak burst and an imaginary asteroid? especially when half of those screenshots claiming asteroids of 40+ meters or whatever took place outside the asteroid field? hell, as I pointed out that effect was seen long before the asteroid scene, before they ever even entered the asteroid field! FFS he pointed out the falcon in spots that were harder to see than where those flak burst magically became asteroids. as in literally marked it in the screenshots. if there was an asteroid 2 or 3 times the size of the falcon, it would be in the film and easily visible. others were. no, there is no excuse and don't insult mine or anybody's intelligence by trying to play it off.

All fan calcs are estimations, idiot. snip rant is too long snip the ICS. Its a brief analysis intended to confirm that the scene is consistent with what is already known, and it does its job perfectly fine once you understand its purpose.

ill admit the only reason I responded to that one is because I did read it. the sarcastic line at the end was uncalled for. I apologize. I'm not a total asshole.

At this point however I am convinced that you don't understand the nature and methodology of these kinds of articles. You want everything to be more precise than its intended to be, are unforgiving of honest mistakes, are unforgiving of limiting factors like image quality, and will dismiss any analysis of a visual on "canon" grounds despite the saying "a picture is worth a thousands words"-- and these pictures are the ultimate in Star Wars canon. If you keep insisting otherwise, I will simply stop responding with arguments because arguments will be unnecessary.

some of mikes work I do actually agree with. for example, his articles on hyperdrive and communications. I have never argued against those points. only the ones where there is obvious differences between his interpretation and what we see on screen. as for dismissing an analysis, if he says that the AT-AT has 3 legs, but the film shows 4 legs, then he is obviously wrong. same situation with the bunker display and flak bursts magically becoming vaporized asteroids. so why wouldn't I dismiss it? honest question.

You want to play the backtracking game, lets go right the hell back to where this started:

nope. snip. not gonna listen to you try to argue in circles. I disagreed with him using the numbers from the tech manuals. I'm not gonna listen to you write a 2000 word essay on why he supposedly did it and why I should accept it while insulting me and ridiculing me while answering absolutely nothing.

So, how about you apologize for telling to "get my head out of my ass" AND apologize for all the accusations of dishonesty you have been throwing around? Also, as a friendly suggestion, you should also apologize to Queue. He's just doing his job as admin, and if you disagree with his judgement you are supposed to take it up in private rather than publicly insulting him over it. After all, I was the one who suggested it be moved here. I won't apologize for that, however. It does belong here.

I will and do apologize to Queue. you are correct on that score. but this whole time you haven't given a single solid answer against any of my accusations. only avoiding the issue with insults and creating different issues without actually answering me along with vomiting red herring arguments out of your ass. try actually answering this. did the display match what wrong stated in his article? yes or no.

[Formless]

that's not backpedaling. that's you calling me a liar for no reason and then me answering that by telling you that I had already addressed it. you had no reason to call me a liar. and I would point out that since Crazedwraith already addressed it, the Broken Record argument applies to you as well.

CrazedWraith hasn't posted in this thread since you responded to him. Are you trying to make me lose my patience with you?

Honestly, after so many repetitive exchanges with you, no, it doesn't apply to me. I have given varied responses and every time you come back with more of the same. If someone tells you that the ICS was reprinted (or rather, have not gone out of print to begin with) you maybe ought to either trust them, or look it up for yourself if you don't. What you did was neither of those things. You repeated the claim that the contents of the ICS were non-canon without verifying that it was true. That's called bullshitting. For the record? You can still buy them on Amazon AND they continued the tradition by releasing an ICS for The Force Awakens as well as announcing yet another for The Last Jedi. Hell, according to Wookiepedia, the people who made Rouge One even used the ICS as a visual reference for what a Star Destroyer is supposed to look like on the inside. All of this says that the original ICS books are still canon, and the new books are definitely canon. If its still in print and doesn't have that Legends label, its canon. And if they wanted to de-canonize the ICS series, they probably wouldn't print new ones.

I have more integrity than somebody like you who can never admit when they are wrong.

Funny, that description seems to fit you to a T. I said that the analysis of Star Wars acceleration does not hinge on the stupid tactical display, and you can go to the damn website and see for yourself. I am done doing the legwork for you; at minimum you can start linking to the pages where you claim that errors exist rather than repeatedly claiming they do and expecting us to trust you to have actually read the page. I hate tracking down the exact pages where you claim these errors exist using only your image spam as a reference. It seems like a deliberate attempt to make this needlessly hard for your opponents to debate with you.

wow. you are telling me that somebody as smart as brian and mike seem to be, who can take VHS footage and tear it apart frame by frame, cant see the difference between flak burst and an imaginary asteroid? especially when half of those screenshots claiming asteroids of 40+ meters or whatever took place outside the asteroid field? hell, as I pointed out that effect was seen long before the asteroid scene, before they ever even entered the asteroid field! FFS he pointed out the falcon in spots that were harder to see than where those flak burst magically became asteroids. as in literally marked it in the screenshots. if there was an asteroid 2 or 3 times the size of the falcon, it would be in the film and easily visible. others were. no, there is no excuse and don't insult mine or anybody's intelligence by trying to play it off.

Stop acting cute, I am saying that intelligence only gets you as far as the quality of the data you have to work with. That is how intelligent people make honest mistakes. VHS has relatively poor image quality, and the original tapes before the Special Editions were even worse. Its hard to tell apart the Falcon itself from the surrounding asteroids in the original VHS and even the Special Edition release its difficult, which I know because I OWN THE SPECIAL EDITION VHS. I watched the shit out of that movie as a kid, you have no idea how much you sound like a spoiled fucktard right now. They really weren't as high quality as you are expecting. So yes, I think its wholly possible to mistake flak bursts for exploding asteroids. You and I may very well remember different movies-- and I do actually mean that literally. I'm betting you have only ever seen them in HD and can't imagine the difference it makes.

Now, someone who isn't trolling would accept that this is a legitimate issue and move on rather than get hyperfocused on how this somehow magically undoes tons of honest work and many various analyses Mike, Brian, and even Curtis Saxon put into figuring this shit out. It doesn't invalidate it and it isn't the only way Mike, Brian and Curits Saxon figured out these numbers for turbolasers. Mike's own site (as in, his own analysis of turbolasers) attempts to find the numbers by looking at Base Delta Zero bombardment AND from scaling down the Death Star to see if it fits onto a trend line (which it does). But you are a troll, and that's the only reason why we are having this facile discussion. You aren't the first person to try the Silver Bullet ploy. It seems to be one of the most loved fallacies of trolls.

ill admit the only reason I responded to that one is because I did read it. the sarcastic line at the end was uncalled for. I apologize. I'm not a total asshole.

Thank you. I will accept that much at least.

some of mikes work I do actually agree with. for example, his articles on hyperdrive and communications. I have never argued against those points. only the ones where there is obvious differences between his interpretation and what we see on screen. as for dismissing an analysis, if he says that the AT-AT has 3 legs, but the film shows 4 legs, then he is obviously wrong. same situation with the bunker display and flak bursts magically becoming vaporized asteroids. so why wouldn't I dismiss it? honest question.

Your initial thesis in this thread was that the main site and Brian Young's Turbolaser Commentaries should either be updated to the new canon or taken down, which makes it sound as if you disagree with everything on the site. That there are a few things that you don't disagree with is hard to know until you mention it explicitely. That you also mock him despite the known issue of image quality makes you sound like an entitled brat who can't tell the difference between a lie and a legitimate problem they would agree confounds the analysis. But most of all was your statement that "most of those "inconsistent measurements" are nothing more than fan calcs. not official numbers." Which makes it sound as if you think fan calcs can never provide insight into the canon of the film. It isn't much of a leap to think you would ignore evidence that is inconvenient to your point of view of Star Wars. Your behavior is kinda like someone saying "now that cortosis ore is no longer canon, there is nothing in canon that can resist a lightsaber cut." Then I point out that Vader's armor deflected Luke's lightsaber in The Empire Strikes Back, and that Qui Gon's lightsaber met resistance from the blast doors he tried cutting through in The Phantom Menace. That person then dismisses that because its not explicitly canon, even though its a simple deduction based on what we actually see in the movies. Its exactly the same behavior when you dismiss Mike and Brian's asteroid destruction calcs or Mike's Base Delta Zero calcs simply for being fan deductions about events witnessed on screen.

To put it another way inspired by seanrobertson, you are willing to accept the who, where, how, and why of the films without question. But as soon as someone starts explaining the "what", you dismiss it as idle fan speculation. Which is probably why you have no problem with the communications part, as that is integral to certain plot points. But the asteroids blowing up is mostly peripheral, until you want to compare Star Wars to something else like Star Trek or real life engineering.

nope. snip. not gonna listen to you try to argue in circles. I disagreed with him using the numbers from the tech manuals. I'm not gonna listen to you write a 2000 word essay on why he supposedly did it and why I should accept it while insulting me and ridiculing me while answering absolutely nothing.

I have done my due diligence by showing why your argument against his analysis of Photon Torpedoes is invalid, and I have no respect for people who think "tl:dr" is a valid excuse for wasting my time. If you aren't going to even read my argument, then concede the point about Mike's photon torpedo page and use of the Star Trek: Technical Manuals. I don't want to hear your continuous whining when you won't bother with actually debating.

I will and do apologize to Queue. you are correct on that score. but this whole time you haven't given a single solid answer against any of my accusations. only avoiding the issue with insults and creating different issues without actually answering me along with vomiting red herring arguments out of your ass. try actually answering this. did the display match what wrong stated in his article? yes or no.

The display is meaningless faff, you moron. Don't waste my time with this shit anymore. I already told you that the major point of the analysis was the scenes from the perspective of the Rebel fleet itself where the audience actually sees the two fleets in motion, and you ignored it completely. So address that or shut the fuck up.

[texanmarauder]

CrazedWraith hasn't posted in this thread since you responded to him. Are you trying to make me lose my patience with you?

what does this have to do with anything? you asked me a question. I answered. get over it.

Honestly, after so many repetitive exchanges with you, no, it doesn't apply to me. I have given varied responses and every time you come back with more of the same.

you have given me every answer but ones pertaining to the question. telling me that I don't know what I'm looking at, or why I'm interpreting something wrong, or the section that I'm challenging is irrelevant isn't an answer. its a cop out.

If someone tells you that the ICS was reprinted (or rather, have not gone out of print to begin with) you maybe ought to either trust them, or look it up for yourself if you don't. What you did was neither of those things. You repeated the claim that the contents of the ICS were non-canon without verifying that it was true. That's called bullshitting. For the record? You can still buy them on Amazon AND they continued the tradition by releasing an ICS for The Force Awakens as well as announcing yet another for The Last Jedi. Hell, according to Wookiepedia, the people who made Rouge One even used the ICS as a visual reference for what a Star Destroyer is supposed to look like on the inside. All of this says that the original ICS books are still canon, and the new books are definitely canon. If its still in print and doesn't have that Legends label, its canon. And if they wanted to de-canonize the ICS series, they probably wouldn't print new ones.

first off, the wookieepedia link to the ICS books is labeled legends. second, all except TFA and soon to be TLJ were published long before the Disney cutoff. as was the complete vehicles c2013 [url=http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Star_War ... e_Vehicles]. that book has been updated in 2016 with a section on TFA. that doesn't make the whole thing canon again per disneys canon policy. the only ICS book that is considered canon is TFA and soon TLJ. is that better? on another note, I doubt that they would recanonize numbers that were never canon for the films themselves. that's why they were tossed in continuity canon, not G canon, in the old holocron.

Funny, that description seems to fit you to a T. I said that the analysis of Star Wars acceleration does not hinge on the stupid tactical display, and you can go to the damn website and see for yourself. I am done doing the legwork for you; at minimum you can start linking to the pages where you claim that errors exist rather than repeatedly claiming they do and expecting us to trust you to have actually read the page. I hate tracking down the exact pages where you claim these errors exist using only your image spam as a reference. It seems like a deliberate attempt to make this needlessly hard for your opponents to debate with you.

that is actually a good point. expect links from now on.

Stop acting cute, I am saying that intelligence only gets you as far as the quality of the data you have to work with. That is how intelligent people make honest mistakes. VHS has relatively poor image quality, and the original tapes before the Special Editions were even worse. Its hard to tell apart the Falcon itself from the surrounding asteroids in the original VHS and even the Special Edition release its difficult, which I know because I OWN THE SPECIAL EDITION VHS. I watched the shit out of that movie as a kid, you have no idea how much you sound like a spoiled fucktard right now. They really weren't as high quality as you are expecting. So yes, I think its wholly possible to mistake flak bursts for exploding asteroids. You and I may very well remember different movies-- and I do actually mean that literally. I'm betting you have only ever seen them in HD and can't imagine the difference it makes.

newsflash asshole, I own them too. I even still have a VCR to watch them on. and brian didn't seem to have a problem cherry picking his screenshots to where we only see the burst did he? he could demonstrate frame by frame the turbolasers popping the only asteroids that we actually see getting vaped, but not the others? a 60m asteroid would be easily visible against any background in that scene. and we can see the falcon just fine. as I pointed out earlier, and you predictably ignored, he pointed out the falcon in several of those screenshots, even when it had a much slimmer profile than a 60m asteroid. even shopped in a little arrow. even if the image quality was that poor, even if he was watching it on a screen the size of a lunch box, the sound quality was more than sufficient for anybody with hearing to hear C-3PO state that they were coming out of the asteroid field. in all fairness, we still see a couple, then none. preponderance of evidence my friend. the whole "poor image quality" bit doesn't hold up when he has demonstrated the ability to pick out much smaller and less visible objects. but you stick to your guns buddy. final word. is it possible it was just a mistake? yes. probable given the evidence? absolutely not.

Now, someone who isn't trolling would accept that this is a legitimate issue blah blah blah blah You aren't the first person to try the Silver Bullet ploy. It seems to be one of the most loved fallacies of trolls.

I'm sorry. who here has tried to give every excuse possible, up to and including attacking my interpretation of a straight forward tactical display, to avoid giving a straight answer? and when I do give a straight answer you attack it as well. I was asking honest questions and making honest statements. the only troll here is you. this feels more like a common core math question. I give an answer and you tell me that I'm wrong, even though I had the correct answer, because of how I arrived at that answer.

ill admit the only reason I responded to that one is because I did read it. the sarcastic line at the end was uncalled for. I apologize. I'm not a total asshole.

Thank you. I will accept that much at least.

Your initial thesis in this thread was that the main site and Brian Young's Turbolaser Commentaries should either be updated to the new canon or taken down, which makes it sound as if you disagree with everything on the site. That there are a few things that you don't disagree with is hard to know until you mention it explicitely. That you also mock him despite the known issue of image quality makes you sound like an entitled brat who can't tell the difference between a lie and a legitimate problem they would agree confounds the analysis. But most of all was your statement that "most of those "inconsistent measurements" are nothing more than fan calcs. not official numbers." Which makes it sound as if you think fan calcs can never provide insight into the canon of the film. It isn't much of a leap to think you would ignore evidence that is inconvenient to your point of view of Star Wars. Your behavior is kinda like someone saying "now that cortosis ore is no longer canon, there is nothing in canon that can resist a lightsaber cut." Then I point out that Vader's armor deflected Luke's lightsaber in The Empire Strikes Back, and that Qui Gon's lightsaber met resistance from the blast doors he tried cutting through in The Phantom Menace. That person then dismisses that because its not explicitly canon, even though its a simple deduction based on what we actually see in the movies. Its exactly the same behavior when you dismiss Mike and Brian's asteroid destruction calcs or Mike's Base Delta Zero calcs simply for being fan deductions about events witnessed on screen.

I will say this. I do have a problem of articulation. which is to say, I often suck at it. I can try to say this and it comes out sounding like something entirely different.

The display is meaningless faff, you moron. Don't waste my time with this shit anymore. I already told you that the major point of the analysis was the scenes from the perspective of the Rebel fleet itself where the audience actually sees the two fleets in motion, and you ignored it completely. So address that or shut the fuck up.

wow, you seriously cant give a straight answer can you? we actually don't see the imperial fleet in motion. we hear a mon calamari crew member yell that ships are spotted, admiral Akbar yell his notorious line of "its a trap" and literally, a second later, we see the imp fleet on screen. plus, I refer you back to this quote from his propulsion page. http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tec ... sion2.html

The Battle of Endor demonstrated the accelerative capabilities of Star Destroyers. The Star Destroyer group was clearly seen on the Endor shield-generator bunker's tactical display, heading toward the Rebel fleet at a velocity of at least 6E4 m/s. It decelerated to near-zero velocity relative to the Rebel fleet, in roughly 2 seconds.

that implies that not only were both fleets seen on the display, but that the entire incident that he describes was seen on the display. which would make sense, since as I said before, we never see the imp fleet move. nor, due to tight shots on the fleet with the wrong camera angles, do we actually see the orbit behind them. so here is my question. how can you derive a fleet moving as fas as mike says, in the timeframe that mike says, when we don't actually see them move? my second question, did you see a different tactical display in that bunker than the rest of us? third question. what is your aversion to direct answers?

[Formless]

texan, I'm going to say this as simply as possible: you are talking past me. Constantly. All of your arguments have been about very minor details, and every time I tell you that Mike or Brian was making more sophisticated arguments that do not hinge on the trivial bits you say they hinge on, you ignore it. Now that you've linked to the page where you take issue with Mike's acceleration calculations, I can see that this same pattern applies here: the page clearly uses the Death Star's motion around Alderaan as another major point of reference, a novel that at the time was canon, the Executor's acceleration towards the second Death Star when it went into its death arc, and lastly, he doesn't actually show an image of the tactical display he was referring to, making me wonder if he is actually referring to the same screenshot you are. With no proof, and with your pattern of intellectual sloth, I have to ask you for proof that its the same display you think it is.

(Besides which, if I were to make an argument for the same acceleration speeds in the new canon, I could just point you to the ramming scene in Rouge One. But that would be a bit off topic, since your beef is with Mike and his calculations.)

[Solauren]

Dude, very few people care about the Versus debate anymore. And probably won't.

At least not until Disney purchases Paramount and announces 'Star Wars v Star Trek - Clash of Infinities' or something like that.

[texanmarauder]

texan, I'm going to say this as simply as possible: you are talking past me. Constantly. All of your arguments have been about very minor details, and every time I tell you that Mike or Brian was making more sophisticated arguments that do not hinge on the trivial bits you say they hinge on, you ignore it. Now that you've linked to the page where you take issue with Mike's acceleration calculations, I can see that this same pattern applies here: the page clearly uses the Death Star's motion around Alderaan as another major point of reference, a novel that at the time was canon, the Executor's acceleration towards the second Death Star when it went into its death arc, and lastly, he doesn't actually show an image of the tactical display he was referring to, making me wonder if he is actually referring to the same screenshot you are. With no proof, and with your pattern of intellectual sloth, I have to ask you for proof that its the same display you think it is.

(Besides which, if I were to make an argument for the same acceleration speeds in the new canon, I could just point you to the ramming scene in Rouge One. But that would be a bit off topic, since your beef is with Mike and his calculations.)

that proof is impossible to provide since mike was the one who made the claim and he isn't here to ask. but I will tell you that there was only ONE scene in the whole movie where that bunker display was in view. and he was pretty specific about it being the" Endor shield-generator bunker's tactical display". you wanted proof, that is as good as it gets.

[texanmarauder]

texan, I'm going to say this as simply as possible: you are talking past me. Constantly. All of your arguments have been about very minor details, and every time I tell you that Mike or Brian was making more sophisticated arguments that do not hinge on the trivial bits you say they hinge on, you ignore it. Now that you've linked to the page where you take issue with Mike's acceleration calculations, I can see that this same pattern applies here:

at this point i will be 100% honest. my intention was to point out obvious flaws in his website that anybody with an internet connection and POS computer could see. instead of acknowledging those flaws, you just tried to convince me that it didn't matter and dodge the issue entirely. and TBH it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme. but that wasn't the point. another thing that i was pointing out was that mike uses the false asteroid vaporizations on this page http://www.stardestroyer.net/tlc/Power/index.html as a direct reference on this page. http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tec ... Beam2.html this sort of thing happens a lot. but again, its not the point.

in short, i got pretty much what i expected.

[Formless]

If it doesn't matter, why did you suggest Mike's site should be taken down?

It seems like its more than just the little details that matter to you. You seem to act as if everything on the site is so critically flawed it should not longer be online, and based on what? A few minor mistakes based on VHS quality issues, and possibly Mike remembering a scene that took less than a few seconds at most? Its a pitiful argument.

And also, if you want to prove that those analyses are wrong you can absolutely do better than you have been doing. Instead you choose to scale shit against laser beams when they were originally scaled against the Star Destroyers themselves, which doesn't fly especially when that site was written by Brian Young, not Mike Wong. When Mike is quoted, he isn't doing the scaling but rather talking about the oddities of the blast mechanism that destroys the asteroid. There are several analyses on that page, including one where the thing being analyzed is actually Han's blaster rather than a turbolaser, and different calculations are shown for different scenes. If you want to deal with the calculations, by all means, feel free to do so in detail. But simply insisting that the vaporization calcs are false does not score you any points.

[texanmarauder]

If it doesn't matter, why did you suggest Mike's site should be taken down?

i didn't. i asked if there were any plans for it. so i will thank you to not put words in my mouth.

I'm just curious as to rather or not the main site is ever going to be updated or just plain shut down? most of it no longer applies to anything except the old EU. brian youngs page needs to be updated. too many debate idiots out there who think that this site is still canon.

i never suggested it be shut down. updated, yes, but not shut down.

It seems like its more than just the little details that matter to you. You seem to act as if everything on the site is so critically flawed it should not longer be online, and based on what? A few minor mistakes based on VHS quality issues, and possibly Mike remembering a scene that took less than a few seconds at most? Its a pitiful argument.

the details don't really matter. it started with honest discussion and no animosity. we are at this point because you choose to dance around the subject and find/create excuses for everything i bring up instead of just acknowledging that the flaw even exists. you cant even answer a simple yes or no question without writhing a few paragraphs on why I'm wrong to even question it.

And also, if you want to prove that those analyses are wrong you can absolutely do better than you have been doing. Instead you choose to scale shit against laser beams when they were originally scaled against the Star Destroyers themselves, which doesn't fly especially when that site was written by Brian Young, not Mike Wong. When Mike is quoted, he isn't doing the scaling but rather talking about the oddities of the blast mechanism that destroys the asteroid. There are several analyses on that page, including one where the thing being analyzed is actually Han's blaster rather than a turbolaser, and different calculations are shown for different scenes. If you want to deal with the calculations, by all means, feel free to do so in detail. But simply insisting that the vaporization calcs are false does not score you any points.

how? i read his article, found a section that he claims is from the movie that didn't match the visual....that pretty much covers it. same with brian youngs page. and according to this page http://www.stardestroyer.net/tlc/Charac ... index.html they were scaled against the falcon at different distances. i do know the difference between mikes work and brains. and again, i didn't question the math. only the estimation of the only asteroids that are actually vaporized and the absence of the ones that brian claimed. mike makes references on this page http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tec ... Beam2.html

A Star Destroyer used its light trench-mounted guns to vaporize 40 metre wide asteroids in TESB with 1/15-second bursts (see Brian Young's Turbolaser Power page for more information), resulting in a lower limit of 22,500 TW for light turbolaser output.

now, brian young estimated the 3 asteroids at 20m. he went on to create other, larger asteroids 40m in size and larger. you can see that here. http://www.stardestroyer.net/tlc/Power/index.html now, since he used the falcon as a reference, even though it wasn't in the scene, that makes his estimation extremely questionable. basing size on the fact that larger asteroids were present in the field goes both ways after all. smaller ones were present too. not only that, but lets say it was the light guns used against the falcon and the asteroid. the size of the bolts were measured in length, not width. so those asteroids would still have to be smaller than 20m. which would make his reference of a lower limit of 22,500TW false. i got all that from reading his and brains turbolaser pages. feel free to disagree. i feel i have proven my point at this stage. if you don't want to accept it or even acknowledge it, that's up to you.

[texanmarauder]

I have some pages for you to read that prove my point in excellent manner regarding the main site and its obvious errors. and all of these were pointed out over a decade ago. not just about wong but also about brian.


http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... ?f=4&t=269

https://forums.spacebattles.com/thread ... ize.23690/


http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 4&start=30



http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... =14&t=3281

its not just me. there are plenty of people out there that have deduced the same thing as I have about wongs site, as well as brains.

[texanmarauder]

typing on my phone seems to have an interesting side effect. when I type brian, it autocorrects to brain if I don't catch it.

[Formless]

Forget it, texan. Arguing with you is like sticking my dick in tabasco sauce. It burns, and it serves no point other than to cause pain. I am not going to read your stupid links; only a troll relies on other peoples arguments instead of providing their own.

[Formless]

Although, having said that, its amusing that you would actually link me to StarfleetJedi of all places when that entire site is notorious for being full of verifiable trolls who have had a bias against this site from day zero. Many of their arguments, scientific understanding and ideas are literally debunked in Mike's hate mail section, from a time before Mike created these forums. Did you know we have a wiki? Because if you had checked it, you would know that you effectively just shot any credibility you had around here right in the dick.

[texanmarauder]

there is no credibility on this site anyway. you cant give a straight yes or no answer to a yes or no question. I showed you those links because you think that brian simply made a mistake on his turbolaser commentaries, that nobody could see the asteroids with the given VHS quality. yet people have been calling him on it since it went up. not only that, but he did the same thing with his personal fucking website! he established that site years after the fact!
http://www.scifights.net/stswstarships1.mp4] 22:31 by then he had to have known that there weren't any asteroids where he claimed. hell, he was called out for it in several forums. and again, we only see the burst, not the asteroid itself. AGAIN, POINT PROVEN. this throws the "accidental mistake" theory out the airlock. not only that, but one of those links showed people griping about him making the same claims during the slave 1 chase scene in AOTC. you don't even have the balls to acknowledge it. you will brush it off or ignore it entirely as you have this whole time. FOR HELLS FUCKING SAKE, you asked for proof that mike was talking about the same shield generator bunker tactical display as I was and it was the ONLY scene in the whole movie that showed the shield generator bunker tactical display!

and just for fun....

Forget it, texan. Arguing with you is like sticking my dick in tabasco sauce. It burns, and it serves no point other than to cause pain. I am not going to read your stupid links; only a troll relies on other peoples arguments instead of providing their own.

anybody who actually uses or defends this site is doing exactly that. I even used the whole quote instead of just the relevant line. happy?

[Eternal_Freedom]

This may be a stupid question, but have you considered the possibility that the bunker tactical display actually was the same one as Mike used? Things were updated in the Special Edition, and may have changed in the ~2004 DVD releases, I can't be sure. It's possible you really are looking at two different displays.

[texanmarauder]

I have thought about that. but the bunker display wasn't changed. the only thing actually changed about that scene was that they cut out a bit of a firefight to get to it. not only that, but the original re-release was unaltered. I have never seen this particular scene changed aside from the afore mentioned cutscene. ive looked and looked and still not found any reference to a change to the display.

[texanmarauder]

I feel like audey murphy in "the guns of ft petticoat" on these forums anyway. Lt Frank Hewitt, a union officer in the south, is trying to do the right thing and warn people about Impending indian attacks. they run him off just because he is a union officer, until he helps defend them and brings a body back of a girl killed by the Indians. then they finally believe him. pretty much anything I say is automatically dismissed in favor of preconceived notions with no real evidence behind them or because wong/brian said so. I should be used to it by now. like me pointing out the fake vaporized asteroids. this isn't the only site where he does this. he uses the same material on his own site which, along with his youtube blogs, he only started about 5 or 6 years ago. so its not like he didn't know what he was doing. hell, I brought the proverbial "body" and formless still just dismissed it and gave up altogether. apparently, he needs a signed confession from brian. hell, brian himself still isn't convinced that turbolasers can cause the flak burst effect. he told me that himself on youtube.

[KraytKing]

Wow. What a little narcissist. Making himself out to be the martyr.

[texanmarauder]

Wow. What a little narcissist. Making himself out to be the martyr.

oh look. an idiot making an asshole outta himself. see? I can do it too.

[texanmarauder]

don't you have some studying to do? you already conceded the other thread. wanna take a crack at this one?

[LadyTevar]

Texan Banned, Thread Locked.